WHY manufacturers insist to make lenses using ball bearings for aperture rings? All of them, except perhaps the ones in Contax lenses, feel clumsy. Heck, even Leica's feel clumsy. And they get broken. Often. Which, for some brands (read: russians, but also late Jena lenses) means VERY often, if not even always. Find a MIR lens with a perfect aperture ring if you're able.
But my big wonder is why technology has gone backwards instead of progressing?
Lenses in the 50s and 60s were built, by both Zeiss, and some Russians also, with continuous aperture rings.
These devices are:
- MUCH more precise
- MUCH more reliable
- I have still to find ONE of them that is broken!!

My guess is that idiot beginners wanted the ball bearings stops because they were idiot enough to be unable to set the continuous wheel correctly and needed the stops to be able to stop at the aperture they were supposed to use.
But in these days of advanced built in metering systems, a continuous ring is much more useful than one with stops, as you can adjust easily the aperture just at the desired value without having to count in halves.

Sorry, end of rant!!!

Next rant: against people who spend fortunes on autofocus zooms that take muddy pictures even at f/11 and make your houses appear like designed by Kandinskij. _________________Orio, AdministratorT*NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO

That's something, I cannot confirm. Every Leica lens I had in my hands, also those with ball-bearing aperture rings, felt like 1-million-dollars. _________________Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!